Strict Liability - Lecture notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes...

Description

STRICT LIABILITY Strict Liability is where there is no mens rea required. For nearly all strict liability offences, it must be proved that the D did the relevant actus reus. The idea of not requiring mens rea for part of the offence is illustrated by Prince and also Hibbert. In both these cases the charge against the D was that he had taken an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father against his will, contrary to S55 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

No Fault The actus reus must be proved and the D’s conduct in doing the actus reus must be voluntary. However a D can be convicted if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence. This is so even though the D was totally blameless in respect of the consequence. (Callow v Tillstone)

No ‘due diligence’ defence For some offences the statute provides a defence of ‘due diligence’. This means that the D will not be liable if he can show that he did all that was within his power not to commit the offence. However, there does not seem to be any sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a ‘due diligence’ defence and when it doesn’t. It can be argued that such a defence should always be available for strict liability offences. If it was a defence, then the butcher in Callow v Tillstone would have been not guilty. Another example of where the D;s took all reasonable steps to prevent the offence but were still guilty because there was no ‘due diligence’ defence available is Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and Shah. No defence of mistake Another feature of strict liability offences is that the defence of mistake isn’t available. This is important as, if the defence of mistake is available, the D will be acquitted when he made an honest mistake. Two cases which illustrate the difference in liability are Cundy v Le Cocq and Sherras v De Rutzen. Both of these involved offences under the Licensing Act 1872. SO…. Where an offence is held to be one of strict liability, the following points apply: The D must be proved to have done the actus reus  This must be a voluntary act on his part.  There is no need to prove mens rea for at least part of the actus reus  No ‘due diligence’ defence will be available  The defence of mistake isn’t available.

Strict liability at common law Nearly all strict liability have been created by statute. It is very rare in common law offences. Only 4 common law offences have been held to be ones of strict liability. These are:  Public nuisance  Criminal libel  Blasphemous libel (Now abolished)  Criminal contempt of court

Strict liability in statue law Strict liability offences created by an Act of Parliament will not contain any words requiring mens rea in their definition. However, the courts will still look at a number of factors before deciding that a statutory offence is one of strict liability. Principle in Sweet v Parsley Where an act of parliament doesn’t include any words indicating mens rea, the judges will start by presuming that all criminal offences require mens rea. The courts also look at a variety of points to decide whether the presumption should stand or should be displaced and the offence made one of strict liability. The Gammon Test The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute.  The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in character  The presumption can only be displaced if the statute e is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety  Strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act....